Can the Cruise Industry survive ?

[AlaskaProf]

Puerto Vallarta seems to be the last port on the West Coast to allow Cruise ships to dock. Yesterday, three big ones discharged thousands of unscreened passengers and told them to find a way home. Social distancing in the ticketing lobby at the airport was a matter of inches.

 

[sbu22]

I don't know much about the cruise business. I do know from experience with the oil patch and gambling boats, "repurposing" hulls usually translates to the repurposer acquiring the hull for a discounted scrap price. That happens about 20% of the time, and most of those projects stumble and/or fail. Kinda like trying to make a cow out of a goat. I think the cruise business is in for real tough sledding.

 

[BruceK]

Last week Ruby Princess disembarked 3000 pax in Sydney. Somehow they persuaded Authorities to let them do it. Some live in Sydney, some interstate.
So far there are about 50 pax who tested positive. How many have they infected? How many more will test positive?
This is the last thing Australia needed right now as infections number ramp up. It could tip Australia into a way deeper crisis than we expected. It`s too late now, I think the circumstances need more scrutiny, not as retribution but to never allow a repetition.
Ruby Princess is still hanging around Sydney, at sea, with other ships, idling off the coast. There is at least one sick crew member onboard. Why does the ship not refuel and go wherever it is based? Or do these ships just have a nomadic existence? How are they going to repatriate the crew they don`t need? Via Sydney? Do they really think anyone will board it for a cruise? Feeling lucky?
I don`t even get why the pax who just got disembarked got on.

 

[markpierce]

I have detested the cruise ship industry for 50 years. For such a vast array of good reasons it would exceed the capacity of this text block to detail the copious quantity of reasons. I wish this would kill it. But we will not be that lucky. That said, this virus is highly contagious. Much more contagious than is currently understood. we must starve it by isolating ourselves. All forms of packing humans together must be curtailed for the foreseeable future.

So, how has the cruise-ship industry harmed you? The industry has provided employment/income for tens of thousands from 2nd and 3rd-world countries as well as permitting passengers to experience other cultures and good times. Arriving in San Francisco on February 11, 2020 aboard the Grand Princess:

 

[Insequent]

Last week Ruby Princess disembarked 3000 pax in Sydney. Somehow they persuaded Authorities to let them do it. Some live in Sydney, some interstate.
So far there are about 50 pax who tested positive. How many have they infected? How many more will test positive?
This is the last thing Australia needed right now as infections number ramp up. It could tip Australia into a way deeper crisis than we expected. It`s too late now, I think the circumstances need more scrutiny, not as retribution but to never allow a repetition.
Ruby Princess is still hanging around Sydney, at sea, with other ships, idling off the coast. There is at least one sick crew member onboard. Why does the ship not refuel and go wherever it is based? Or do these ships just have a nomadic existence? How are they going to repatriate the crew they don`t need? Via Sydney? Do they really think anyone will board it for a cruise? Feeling lucky?
I don`t even get why the pax who just got disembarked got on.

So the latest news is that it was not just the Ruby Princess who unloaded pax with no checking or instructions to self-isolate. Altogether there were 4 ships that have done it in Sydney within a few days. Voyager OTS (which you previously noted had cases I believe), Ovation OTS, and another one. All are now listed with dis-embarked pax having covid-19. None of the pax were checked in any way, or asked to stay home! I thought the NSW Govt was doing a fairly good job, but the NSW Chief Health Officer and her team, who apparently guided the ship's captains on requirements, would appear to have comprehensively failed the nation with these ships if the news reports are accurate.

Of course the best advice remains - its every citizen's job to maintain social distancing to limit the spread and control the new infection rate. Closing pubs, restaurants, gyms, cinemas etc might finally bring it home to those who have ignored previous measures.

 

[BandB]

So, how has the cruise-ship industry harmed you? The industry has provided employment/income for tens of thousands from 2nd and 3rd-world countries as well as permitting passengers to experience other cultures and good times. Arriving in San Francisco on February 11, 2020 aboard the Grand Princess:

The cruise industry has been poor citizens of the world. They haven't paid taxes. They haven't followed good practices in terms of employment or treatment of their employees. They haven't followed good health practices. In times of trouble they've shown total disregard for their customers and regard only for their revenues. They've had ships full of sick passengers but rather than go to the closest port or returning home, they went to the cheapest port. Just during this crisis they returned to service right after a trip with people who caught coronavirus and they continued to set sail on more cruises even after knowing there was a pandemic. Then the majority of times they won't give a refund regardless of what is going on, only credits. Their cancellation policy is what led many of the people this time to risk their lives.

Now as to a bailout and financial assistance they've already asked for, I have no reason to even consider it. It won't go to their employees. It won't go to the harmed customers. History tells us what they'll do with it. So, in my opinion, they haven't shown themselves to be good citizens and I don't like them.

Just one person's opinion and view of them. However, you asked another poster what he had against them. I can't answer for him, just for myself.

As to bailouts and financial help, nearly every business in this country and nearly every individual is going to need help and we don't have enough for all, so as I start deciding who does or doesn't get help, the cruise lines go on the top of the doesn't get help list.

 

[CaptTom]

The cruise industry has been poor citizens of the world...

Reading your (largely accurate) list, I was struck by the idea that you can say the same things about almost any large corporation. Certainly the one I worked for didn't care about employees or customers, only executives and stockholders. At one point they were on the "dirty thirty" list of corporations which not only didn't pay any taxes, but received tax money in various types of incentives. I'm not making judgments or trying to get political, just observing.

 

[BandB]

Reading your (largely accurate) list, I was struck by the idea that you can say the same things about almost any large corporation. Certainly the one I worked for didn't care about employees or customers, only executives and stockholders. At one point they were on the "dirty thirty" list of corporations which not only didn't pay any taxes, but received tax money in various types of incentives. I'm not making judgments or trying to get political, just observing.

I wouldn't go that far though. I don't know of many others that come close to the Cruise Industry. I do know of others with various degrees of corporate irresponsibility. The ultimate obligations are to shareholders but that doesn't have to mean to the detriment of all others.

However, I do think we must be careful of who we bailout and subsidize and under what terms. The Airlines used their tax savings to do buybacks not to benefit employees. Now, I think they still merit help this time, but it must be with some strings attached. Actually nothing should go to anyone without any strings. That even includes small businesses which are often as non caring. Don't give them grants or loans, only for the owner to pocket and still close a month later without paying employees. Where loans are made, take steps to insure repayment.

Just the cruise industry has been the worst of any industry I'm aware of. They make it clear they are not US, not subject to US laws and taxes, until something like this comes along.

As to the company you worked for, I can't speak since I don't know who it was. I don't doubt that it felt exactly as you have described.

 

[Ski in NC]

Cruise lines and airlines are a bit different than most industries. The companies do not own land and factories and do not make a product. They own ships and aircraft and hire people to run/fly them.

If the companies go bankrupt, someone will buy/lease the ships/aircraft, hire folks to run them and life goes on.

There is nothing sacred about the companies that hold pieces of paper saying they own these particular machines. If they set themselves up to where a few month disruption would cause them to fail, then let them fail. Someone will buy the machines and get them moving. If there is market demand.

No bailout for either.

 

[slowgoesit]

Cruise lines and airlines are a bit different than most industries. The companies do not own land and factories and do not make a product. They own ships and aircraft and hire people to run/fly them.

If the companies go bankrupt, someone will buy/lease the ships/aircraft, hire folks to run them and life goes on.

There is nothing sacred about the companies that hold pieces of paper saying they own these particular machines. If they set themselves up to where a few month disruption would cause them to fail, then let them fail. Someone will buy the machines and get them moving. If there is market demand.

No bailout for either.

Same could be said for banks. No bailouts, and let the market sort it out.


To "B" of B & B. Your comment about not enough to go around is accurate . . . to a point. The truth is, there aren't ANY $$$ to go around. It's just a matter of how much borrowing/debt we want to incur to bail others out . . . and I agree with the general sentiment. If the US Flag wasn't what they wanted to fly on their ships (and meet employment standards, etc) than they can go to the country whose flag they WERE flying and ask THEM for handouts . . . .

 

[SteveK]

I wonder why authorities did not allow cruise ships to dock and stay at the dock while every passenger is tested and then separate infected from not yet infected, allow non infected to go ashore to a quarantine facility for 14 days before moving along home.
Meanwhile those infected stay aboard until hospital beds are available.

The above goes for the crew too, forget nationality.
It does seem that simple common sense is not being practiced.
Some cruise ships have already offered to be floating hospitals, why not take them up on it?

 

[Dougcole]

The cruise industry has been poor citizens of the world. They haven't paid taxes. They haven't followed good practices in terms of employment or treatment of their employees. They haven't followed good health practices. In times of trouble they've shown total disregard for their customers and regard only for their revenues. They've had ships full of sick passengers but rather than go to the closest port or returning home, they went to the cheapest port. Just during this crisis they returned to service right after a trip with people who caught coronavirus and they continued to set sail on more cruises even after knowing there was a pandemic. Then the majority of times they won't give a refund regardless of what is going on, only credits. Their cancellation policy is what led many of the people this time to risk their lives.

Now as to a bailout and financial assistance they've already asked for, I have no reason to even consider it. It won't go to their employees. It won't go to the harmed customers. History tells us what they'll do with it. So, in my opinion, they haven't shown themselves to be good citizens and I don't like them.

Just one person's opinion and view of them. However, you asked another poster what he had against them. I can't answer for him, just for myself.

As to bailouts and financial help, nearly every business in this country and nearly every individual is going to need help and we don't have enough for all, so as I start deciding who does or doesn't get help, the cruise lines go on the top of the doesn't get help list.

This.


Add to it that it is a FILTHY industry. Time and time again they have shown complete disregard for international pollution laws. The industry has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in fines in the last ten years in the US alone, but they don't seem to care, their practices have not changed. They have also destroyed many of the world's pristine places and ruined many unique cultures to build ports.


One of my former employees, a Brazilian, worked for the cruise industry for three years. He described it as indentured servitude, almost slavery.


The ships themselves can be crime ridden and dangerous. Many of the crimes, ranging from petty theft to rape, are not investigated in any meaningful way.




They also promote obesity, greed and alcoholism.



In no way should they be bailed out. We, as a world, need to take this opportunity to put an end to the industry in its current state once and for all. No more cruises for more than 200 passengers at a time. It will be painful in the short term from an economic standpoint, but is the correct long term move.

 

[AdkChris]

It is a mystery to me how corporate managers (executives) convince so many people that the public has a responsibility to to look out for the corporations.

But managers are only looking out for themselves, screw the corporations, screw the stock holders, screw the employees and especially screw the public whose tax money should bail them out every time they hit a rough patch.

Yes I'm a little pissed my early retirement is going down the tubes while the national debt skyrockets to bail out suits who have never done a useful days work. Meanwhile the people who make the donuts get to carry the debt payments.

 

[CaptTom]

It is a mystery to me how corporate managers (executives) convince so many people that the public has a responsibility to to look out for the corporations.

But managers are only looking out for themselves, screw the corporations, screw the stock holders, screw the employees and especially screw the public whose tax money should bail them out every time they hit a rough patch.

Yes I'm a little pissed my early retirement is going down the tubes while the national debt skyrockets to bail out suits who have never done a useful days work. Meanwhile the people who make the donuts get to carry the debt payments.

I don't have a question about that quote. I just wanted to see it repeated.

I will direct a comment at the suggestion that a corporation's primary responsibility is to shareholders. Let's do a little mind exercise...

Pretend I make widgets. I make good widgets, and people need widgets. I treat my customers fairly, and give them a good product for a good price. I'm contributing to society and making a good living for myself. All is well.

So I want to expand. I borrow money to buy some new widget making machines. Maybe a new factory. I hire more employees and treat them well, so my quality doesn't go down and my customers remain happy. All is well.

I want to expand more, and it's getting to be more than I can handle. So I issue stock.

How is it that my focus has suddenly changed? When I borrowed from the bank, I didn't stop caring about my employees or customers. I still exist only because society needs my product and I'm good at making it for a fair price.

The stockholders invested in me because all these things made me a success. So why do they now demand that every last nickel be squeezed out of customers and employees, solely to enrich themselves?

I'll never understand this attitude. It's anti-social and against every morality or religion I've ever heard of.

 

[BandB]

I don't have a question about that quote. I just wanted to see it repeated.

I will direct a comment at the suggestion that a corporation's primary responsibility is to shareholders. Let's do a little mind exercise...

Pretend I make widgets. I make good widgets, and people need widgets. I treat my customers fairly, and give them a good product for a good price. I'm contributing to society and making a good living for myself. All is well.

So I want to expand. I borrow money to buy some new widget making machines. Maybe a new factory. I hire more employees and treat them well, so my quality doesn't go down and my customers remain happy. All is well.

I want to expand more, and it's getting to be more than I can handle. So I issue stock.

How is it that my focus has suddenly changed? When I borrowed from the bank, I didn't stop caring about my employees or customers. I still exist only because society needs my product and I'm good at making it for a fair price.

The stockholders invested in me because all these things made me a success. So why do they now demand that every last nickel be squeezed out of customers and employees, solely to enrich themselves?

I'll never understand this attitude. It's anti-social and against every morality or religion I've ever heard of.

I never operated and still don't as my primary obligation being strictly to the shareholders, but I always worked for a company where the shareholders knew we'd fulfill our obligations to employees and customers and vendors. I was never in a position in which I had to choose. Had I been forced, I likely would have left far sooner. Today as the owners, we have no other shareholders. I can assure you that right now all the obligations weigh heavily, but it's our money to decide to spend or give.

In a major company, just like the nation, there isn't unlimited cash and often they can't do what they'd like for employees. Right now, some companies are making incredible commitments and taking great steps to help employees. Others can't do the same as they're facing the possibility of going out of business anyway. Sadly, many companies are so debt ridden today, that being down even 30 days puts them at serious risk of bankruptcy. I'm sure some of their management is callous, but I'm sure there are others who wish they could help employees, but just can't. There's a length of time that if this exceeds without help coming, we'll have to face impossible decisions but thankfully we're not there yet so I can feel a little of what they are facing. I can't imagine being in a position as a CEO in which you're just unable to continue to pay employees. I see companies like Sears, Penney, Macy's and many others that if they're down for 30 days without major help will be in bankruptcy. Look at a business like Gamestop, hanging by a thread.

 

[CaptTom]

In a major company, just like the nation, there isn't unlimited cash and often they can't do what they'd like for employees.

I guess we just see things from different perspectives. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle ground.

I do have to call out a couple of things, however. First, I'm frankly tired of hearing the pleas of poverty when it comes time to talk about raises for employees, followed almost immediately by glowing reports of overflowing coffers when it comes time to talk about executive compensation and stock values. I'll believe that they'd help employees if they could, when I see the same belt-tightening applied to executive compensation.

I'm willing to accept that the CEO is smarter, and works harder, than me. I'm not convinced he or she is 1,000 times (or whatever multiple) smarter or harder working.

I believe if you fire the CEO and promote the next person in line, making half the CEO's salary, the company will be just fine. That person's pretty smart and hard-working, too. Do this a few levels down and you'll save some real money for the company.

I do agree that a lot of the problem is debt. But this is often self-inflicted. Interesting that you mention Sears. Huge leveraged buyouts which leave the investment bankers wealthy and the company saddled with debt are obscene.

I know you won't believe this, but I'm a capitalist. I believe in the power of the market. But it is being manipulated and abused by and for a very small cadre of interlocking boards and frat buddies. It's not a free market, and it's not really even a market. It's a kleptocracy. Employees are pawns, and governments are in their employ.

 

[O C Diver]

It amazes me that the relief package for individuals and businesses is being held up by a political agend. Hope the people whose lives are getting ruined and businesses destroyed, remember it in November. The bill needs to be passed before it's too late.

Ted

 

[ssobol]

I asked the captain of a cruise ship this once. I knew it only took a couple of hours to get to our next destination, but the schedule had us underway for 9-12 hours.

He said sometimes they stop and drift, sometimes they motor slowly, sometimes they motor in circles. Obviously sea state, wind and keeping the passengers comfortable was a factor. But sometimes it's just up to the captain to decide what he feels like doing.
...

It also has to do with their berth slots (like airport landing slots) and getting tied up at the right time for the shore excursions to pick and then return the passengers at the right time for the next leg. If stopping at ports that they don't own berthing space, they pay by the hour to tie up and don't want along side any longer than necessary.

 

[BruceK]

There are now over 100 pax disembarked in Sydney from Ruby Princess diagnosed with CV. One has died of it.
It should not have happened. It`s the reverse of a "shot in the arm",it will add to Sydney`s CV load, and elsewhere as the pax returned to interstate.
Overnight,diagnosed cases increased considerably Australia wide, it is ramping up and getting scary.
Our Parliaments, state and federal, despite some bitching and some changes along the way,have legislated economic relief measures without dissent. I welcome that.I hope the US reaches the an accommodation soon. I suppose it is a mark of the division that exists. Whoever, if anyone, is at fault, division and disagreement must run very deep that it cannot be bridged in these circumstances. Maybe by now it has been, I hope so.

 

[BandB]

It amazes me that the relief package for individuals and businesses is being held up by a political agend. Hope the people whose lives are getting ruined and businesses destroyed, remember it in November. The bill needs to be passed before it's too late.

Ted

Well, unfortunately, the last version I saw the relief package for individuals was extremely weak. The one for businesses had no controls. It is ashamed. I agree. I could go write a better bill and I know nothing about writing bills, but I've read every version of this one.

 

[O C Diver]

Well, unfortunately, the last version I saw the relief package for individuals was extremely weak. The one for businesses had no controls. It is ashamed. I agree. I could go write a better bill and I know nothing about writing bills, but I've read every version of this one.

Yes, it should have been better.

Optics are everything at this point. They need to pass the bill so that people have hope, and then work on a cleanup bill with better help for individuals and more controls on what business can do with the money. How pathetic that the ability to hand out money to keep the system going, is there, but those who don't need it, control the outcome.

Ted

 

[BandB]

I guess we just see things from different perspectives. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle ground.

I do have to call out a couple of things, however. First, I'm frankly tired of hearing the pleas of poverty when it comes time to talk about raises for employees, followed almost immediately by glowing reports of overflowing coffers when it comes time to talk about executive compensation and stock values. I'll believe that they'd help employees if they could, when I see the same belt-tightening applied to executive compensation.

I'm offended by the same thing. Even worse, someone new comes in to turn companies around and his first step is reducing head count. Lousy ways to conduct business.

I'm willing to accept that the CEO is smarter, and works harder, than me. I'm not convinced he or she is 1,000 times (or whatever multiple) smarter or harder working.

Harder working isn't the issue, more valuable is and I agree that they're not 1000 times as valuable. I find the salaries of many CEO's and other Executives Obscene. I think companies should not get a tax deduction on salaries above a certain level.

I believe if you fire the CEO and promote the next person in line, making half the CEO's salary, the company will be just fine. That person's pretty smart and hard-working, too. Do this a few levels down and you'll save some real money for the company.

I don't necessarily agree on this one. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've seen companies terminate their older, expensive store managers based on that strategy and lose a lot. Now, I also have seen succession plans work where people were moved up internally when one person left. Fortunately I was promoted up the line and when I left, someone I'd selected was put in my position.

I do agree that a lot of the problem is debt. But this is often self-inflicted. Interesting that you mention Sears. Huge leveraged buyouts which leave the investment bankers wealthy and the company saddled with debt are obscene.

Debt is almost all self inflicted and IPO's and Venture capitalists greatly add to that. They buy in and start financing so they can pull money out. The Sears situation with Lambert and all he has done is disgusting and the bankruptcy court shouldn't have allowed it to go through. If Sears goes out, his other company still has all the real estate.

I know you won't believe this, but I'm a capitalist. I believe in the power of the market. But it is being manipulated and abused by and for a very small cadre of interlocking boards and frat buddies. It's not a free market, and it's not really even a market. It's a kleptocracy. Employees are pawns, and governments are in their employ.

I believe in capitalism, but not unbridled. Not monopolistic. Not unregulated. I don't agree with your characterizations though as I think they represent part of the market but there are many on the other side, treating employees right. I can even name some that have improved greatly over the last few years.

I strongly oppose all those companies that treat employees as pawns. Sorry you worked for one. Glad I never worked for one that did that or that expected or even would have allowed me to do so.

Back directly to the topic, I do not agree with bailing companies out with no strings attached. We've done that before. I have a problem with companies that don't have the cash to operate through this because they used their cash for stock buybacks.

 

[catalinajack]

Obesity, greed, and alcoholism. Let me see then. Would you be advocating the elimination of Las Vegas?

This.


Add to it that it is a FILTHY industry. Time and time again they have shown complete disregard for international pollution laws. The industry has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in fines in the last ten years in the US alone, but they don't seem to care, their practices have not changed. They have also destroyed many of the world's pristine places and ruined many unique cultures to build ports.


One of my former employees, a Brazilian, worked for the cruise industry for three years. He described it as indentured servitude, almost slavery.


The ships themselves can be crime ridden and dangerous. Many of the crimes, ranging from petty theft to rape, are not investigated in any meaningful way.




They also promote obesity, greed and alcoholism.



In no way should they be bailed out. We, as a world, need to take this opportunity to put an end to the industry in its current state once and for all. No more cruises for more than 200 passengers at a time. It will be painful in the short term from an economic standpoint, but is the correct long term move.

 

[CaptTom]

I don't necessarily agree on this one. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've seen companies terminate their older, expensive store managers based on that strategy and lose a lot. Now, I also have seen succession plans work where people were moved up internally when one person left...

I believe in capitalism, but not unbridled. Not monopolistic. Not unregulated. I don't agree with your characterizations though as I think they represent part of the market but there are many on the other side, treating employees right. I can even name some that have improved greatly over the last few years.

I strongly oppose all those companies that treat employees as pawns. Sorry you worked for one. Glad I never worked for one that did that or that expected or even would have allowed me to do so.

Thank you for a thought-provoking exchange. It would appear there's far more that we agree about than disagree.

I concede that I made some blanket statements which don't apply universally. Obviously I was thinking of the worst examples, although in my experience it seems most corporations are following their lead, at least to some extent.

My theory about firing the CEO and replacing with someone just as capable at half the salary does not extend all the way down the chain. I share your skepticism about the value some of these over-paid executives really add. My theory is that there are usually good people who could add just about the same value for a fraction of the salary.

I've had the privilege to know some very competent managers, as well as some who only got the job because they were college frat buddies with a big-shot. I've known fewer CEOs, and none that I'd put in the category of grossly overpaid. But there is a point at which no human is worth what's being given to some of these executives.

The company I worked for started out with a sincere goal to provide a quality product while respecting customers, employees and stockholders. I watched over the years as this eroded. Most insulting were the attempts to spin all the changes using the same transparent sound bites all the other corporations were using to screw their employees and customers.

 

[OldDan1943]

Understand, these executives can serve on more than company boards of directors, getting a significant pay from each company.
Yup, they get a really nice office at each company, show up to the boards of directors, vote in favor of the board member, make a few decisions and then, onto the next board meeting.
I have never heard of board members on competing company board but, nothing to prevent it. SHRUG

 

[BandB]

Understand, these executives can serve on more than company boards of directors, getting a significant pay from each company.
Yup, they get a really nice office at each company, show up to the boards of directors, vote in favor of the board member, make a few decisions and then, onto the next board meeting.
I have never heard of board members on competing company board but, nothing to prevent it. SHRUG

The number of boards for a single executive to serve on has been significantly reduced over the last 20 years. At one time it was more figurehead than function. Then the SEC started holding board members responsible and they were held accountable to a greater regard. Board members had to start actually earning their compensation in that role. This is not to say there aren't still some more "honorary" than "working" board members but it's a very risky way now to go after easy money.

Very seldom do board members have offices at the company and today few serve on more than 2 boards. Also compensation of board members is more closely scrutinized.

 

[Northern Spy]

Obesity, greed, and alcoholism. Let me see then. Would you be advocating the elimination of Las Vegas?

Shrug. An unsustainable consumer culture city in the desert that sucks the Colorado River dry. I'd be okay with that too.

 

[AdkChris]

Not sure I want the government to eliminate things I don't care for but they should definitely stop subsidizing things which do not benefit the common long term good. If you want to gamble in the desert the rest of us should not be required to divert a public river for you.

 

[AdkChris]

Not sure how I feel about personal business owner. At least they have a need to keep the company solvent which requires them to temper their worst instincts a bit.

Most executives are not owners, they have no investment in the company. They are just hired managers who are supposed to run the company for the owners, stock holders. Thing is the owner - stock holders are so small and spread out that their voice is almost meaningless. This leaves the CEO to treat the company as his fiefdom. As long as the CEO has enough resources to buy the loyalty of the board the CEO can do pretty much what ever he wants. The desire of many CEO's is to stoke their ego and fill their piggy bank. They worked too hard sucking up and kicking down to spend any time worrying about company. Take as much as you can while you can. Seems these are the people the get the corner office a lot of the time.

So we should be very careful when bailing out these companies. These bailout are creating a common debt and should serve a common good.

Think enlightened self interest.

 

[O C Diver]

Not sure I want the government to eliminate things I don't care for but they should definitely stop subsidizing things which do not benefit the common long term good. If you want to gamble in the desert the rest of us should not be required to divert a public river for you.

Kind of like the NYS tax payers funding the continued existence of the Erie canal for recreational tourism.

I really like the Erie canal, but the 99% are funding it for the less than 1% that use it.

Ted